Slashdot Mirror
Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos
First time accepted submitter hawkinspeter writes "Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment, a 26-year-old local man had his phone taken as he was trying to record a violent arrest. They eventually gave back his phone, but without the memory card which also contained photos of his daughter along with the record of the alleged police brutality."
This isn't much news, it's what goes on everyday, despite what any says.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.
So when they grab your phone they also get to trawl your dropbox?
You'd be better off choosing an upload site out of the country with contribute only access from the phone.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It also was already illegal... she just clarified it with policy.
Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment
My understanding is that the court system ruled it was illegal weeks or months before Chief Lanier's announcement. Lanier didn't make anything illegal or change the law. Lanier simply issued a decree to the MPD informing them of the law and directing them to comply with it.
And of course, with or without the court's ruling, the chief's decree, or any legislative action, it was always immoral for police to confiscate private property when no crime has been committed. Tyranny is still "illegal" (i.e., in violation of the natural law giving us the right to life, liberty, and property) whether or not the legal system supports it or condemns it.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
With a modern phone and decent coverage you can use Ustream or Bambuser
Either of these will re-broadcast your video live and also create an archive for watching in the future.
Do you think these dim bulbs would even think of Dropbox and instant-upload features?
Sounds like the police observer handbook needs to be updated. Everyone that wants to document possible police action should now do this.
Most people are not interested in jail breaking their iPhone.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
What keeps the police from issuing a statement that puts the record straight? If I'm not too mistaken, they even have a PR department just for this reason, have the spin doctors work for their dough!
Of course it is possible to show the police in an unfavorable light by showing selected snippets of a video, there are, though, a few things that you simply cannot explain with "selective reporting". Like, say, beating a person who is already lying on the floor and trying desperately to keep the blows from hitting his face...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, but the policy was in response to courts upholding that people have the right to photograph police.
This is an explicit policy which re-affirms case law, and is a reminder that police have no legal right to seize the phone or the memory card.
I bet you also have policies at work that say you're not allowed to do anything illegal.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If the user was guilty of some infraction that justified taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is destruction of evidence.
If the user wasn't guilty of any infraction that justifies taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is illegal seizure of property.
Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Actually, it was my experience that the police academy was an odd mix of high school bullies and the bullied. I was in law enforcement many years ago until I injured my back (at home, in no way work related or anything) and I noticed this right away. You expected to see the bullies there in some number and I guess the bullied makes sense too. What was strange to me was how they got along. The bullies accepted those same people they would have been abusing years before because they were on the same "team" so to speak. The formerly bullied felt like big men being in the company of the tough guys which changed a lot of their attitudes and not for the better. Everyone thinks police are bigots but the truth is actually worse than that. Black people think the police discriminate against them and not whites. Hispanics think the same thing. Whites think they're special and that they get better treatment. The reality though is that all cops are bigots. The only color they like is blue. To most of them "we are all equally worthless".
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Yes, but the policy was in response to courts upholding that people have the right to photograph police.
This is an explicit policy which re-affirms case law, and is a reminder that police have no legal right to seize the phone or the memory card.
I bet you also have policies at work that say you're not allowed to do anything illegal.
I follow a lot of these cases, and part of the problem is the language that folks use around it. When you use the word "sieze", you're suggesting that the officer took an action as directed by statute or policy. What the officer did is either "theft" or "robbery", depending on the circumstances. It sound like the initial taking of the phone was a robbery, which is defined as taking something by force.
As I said about the original policies, they don't matter simply because everything there is already illegal. Note: not "against our policies" or some other administrative issue: ILLEGAL. That means that when an officer robs someone of their phone they have committed a crime. That makes them a criminal.
The set of directives was issued as part of a settlement. Might I suggest to the ACLU that the next time they do this they come up with a much much simpler set of directives, as follows:
1. __________ PD will arrest and charge all officers who have committed crimes, using the same evidentiary standards as would be used with the general public.
2. Failure to do so will result in _________ PD forfeiting this settlement and will instead invoke the secondary settlement of $xmillion.
That's all it needs to say.
We need to quit acting like these slime balls are telling the truth when they claim they didn't know it was "wrong" (illegal, against policy, whatever) to take someone's phone or camera, or to erase the pictures, or to illegally arrest someone. They're lying when they say that. They know it's illegal, so let's quit acting like maybe they didn't know and start prosecuting.
We need to hold our police officers to a *higher* standard, and we need to tell the unions where to go when they get all mad about it.
Do you have ESP?
If the law was FULLY followed, a police officer grabbing the phone without a valid reason (particularly after a memo from the chief clarifying that) is guilty of armed robbery and the fact that it was done under the color of law is an extra aggravating factor. Not seeing the memo is no defense since for anyone else "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
So the question is, does the D.C. Police Department willingly employ armed robbers as officers?